The Front Street Fraud: How Seattle's Council Sold Its Soul for a Cable Car
An editorial outcry accuses city officials of corruption in the approval of a lucrative franchise for a non-resident corporation, warning that the public interest is being sacrificed for private profit.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
At the council meeting Friday night there were positive reports that some members had been secured to support the proposed job; and there is very little doubt in the minds of those who have watched this project that they have been secured by corrupt means. This is plain speech. No man can have an honest conscience in voting for such a proposition as that involved in this outrageous job.
The men who own the property and who pay the taxes protest against the destruction of the street. The non-resident manager of a non-resident corporation is anxious for it. In this situation what is the reasonable inference in the case of councilmen who stand in support of the scheme? There can be but one, and it is such as brands these councilmen as corrupt and infamous.
This is not the only job in which the present council, or at least certain members of it (men who have little or no stake in the community and who should never have been trusted with public duties) have shown the cloven foot. It seems to be their purpose to job out every public interest, leaving nothing for succeeding councils to do. The city is disgraced as well as injured by such a government.
It is urged as an excuse by those who have need of an excuse, that a cable road on Front street will, after a while, be a public necessity. This we maintain is false and a mere pretext. Certainly a road is not a necessity at this time, and if it should in future be a necessity there will be time to provide for it. Let the future take care of the future. If in time there should be the great need of a road now so vehemently predicted, then the franchise will be of great value, and the city will be able to sell it for a large sum. A quarter of a million dollars would not be an excessive price for a privilege as valuable as a Front street railway franchise five years from now.
The truth is that the Council, or certain members favorable to the Front street job, are not considering the public interest at all but on the contrary are thinking only of profit to themselves. This is very plain but nothing else fits the situation.
This 1890s-era editorial captures the fierce tension between Seattle's rapid infrastructure development and civic accountability. The fight over a single streetcar franchise on Front Street mirrors modern debates over public transit funding, private concessions, and whether city councils prioritize developer interests over resident concerns.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.